SECTARIAN APPROPRIATIONS AGAIN.
By W. N. G.
The lower House of Congress has broken over its good resolution in the matter of withholding appropriations from religious institutions. It was hardly to be expected that it would last many years, under the general pressure in behalf of government support of religion; but the vim with which the attitude was assumed in denying the usual appropriations for Catholic Indian schools was calculated to warrant the expectation that the position would be maintained at least through the session in which it was so positively taken. And the breach was not made inadvertently, but after a plain exposition of the inconsistency, and a warm discussion of the point. It came about in this way:— The Committee on Appropriations, supposing that this Congress was irrevocably committed to the principle, left out of the Appropriation Bill the usual allotment to Howard University, an institution established in Washington City for the purpose of affording an opportunity for higher education to the colored race. The item was omitted from the bill on the ground that the university has a department of theology, under the auspices of the American Missionary Society (Congregational), and therefore was reckoned as a sectarian institution. When the House came to the consideration of the bill in Committee of the Whole, an amendment was introduced adding $32,600 for Howard University. The amendment was adopted, strange to say, without discussion at the time. It was adopted pro forma, not more than half a dozen members voting at all. But the next day Mr. Hainer, of Nebraska, who happened to be temporarily absent when the amendment was introduced, called the matter up again, and fully explained that the institution was not only a private one, but sectarian in character. He also called attention to the attitude of the House on the subject of appropriations, stating that:— “Already on two different occasions this House, after full debate—debate of a character calculated to bring out the real judgment and sense of the House—has placed itself emphatically upon the ground that it will not appropriate a single dollar to any sectarian institution. I think it may also be fairly argued from the action already had that this House goes further, and that it is not in favor of appropriating money for any private purposes.” There was a proviso that no part of the money should be paid to any teacher or professor of theology or religion, or to any chaplain in said university. But Mr. Hainer showed that this provision was of no force whatever, as the appropriation was more than half the prospective income of the institution, and would necessarily go into the common treasury, from which all expenses were paid. And one member who favored the appropriation admitted that the special provision was nugatory. In course of his remarks Mr. Hainer gave expression to the following points:— “We voted against aid to Catholic institutions, not because they were not doing good work, but because we recognized it as a fundamental principle of government that we have no right whatever to vote one dollar of money for sectarian purposes.” “Ah, gentlemen, I know how easy it is for this insidious process to effect your real purpose. This is truly ‘the nose of the camel entering the tent.’ The Catholics, with a craft which excels that of Talleyrand, usually accomplish their purpose by the exercise of brains, and there are not wanting Protestants who, with a lack of perception which is akin to idiocy, allow themselves to be lured by a small bait, as in this instance, to commit themselves to a principle which has in the past taken multiplied millions out of the Treasury of the United States, and placed them in the coffers of sectarian institutions.” “No, gentlemen, you must place yourselves upon principle. This Howard University was founded about the close of the war. For about sixteen years it prospered. It rested in the bosom and on the heart of the great people of this country, who are quick and zealous to respond to all good work. It prospered until 1880 as it has never prospered since. There had been no thought of government aid. In 1880, long after the war, and after the colored people were already getting on their feet, there came first the appropriation of $10,000. From that small item the appropriation has grown gradually, until this year they receive $34,500. In the aggregate they have received $401,600 since 1880.” “Will any one say that the president of this institution, who, until he assumed the duties of that office, was a Congregational minister in this city, can teach the Bible as a regular text-book without giving it a Congregational bias? Here is an institution which is presided over by a lifelong Congregationalist. The principal professors are Congregationalists. They maintain a theological department, in which the president and principal professors spend a large part of their time. Special attention is paid to theology. The institution has for its largest and most liberal patron, excepting only the government, a Congregational society whose only object is to spread Congregationalism. It is a missionary society. Missionary work for what?—For the Congregational Church. Certainly not for any other church. You may depend on that. It is to the Congregational Church precisely what the Jesuit order is to the Catholic Church. Will any gentleman who values his word deny this? Will you bolt at the name of Jesuit and embrace a Congregational missionary society? If so, what becomes of your opposition to sectarian appropriations? If you oppose aiding an institution in which proselyting is done for a Protestant church, what objection have you to a Catholic priest or the sworn devotee of some Catholic order doing exactly the same thing for that church? There is only one safe ground, and that is to make no appropriations whatever for private institutions.” “Another thing. These subsidies should never be tolerated, because in voting against them you are obliged to resist special pressure. If it were proper for me to relate what has occurred in our committee room, I could tell you of men of high position in the United States who, forgetting the places which they occupy, regardless of the duties which they owe to the country, came there as truckling mendicants for the purpose of obtaining little appropriations, because, forsooth, their wives happen to be presidents of some of these institutions, or they themselves happen to be occupying some honorary position with respect to other institutions. It pleases them to occupy the positions, and in turn they use their social and official prestige to secure appropriations. Anything that leads to practices of that kind is vicious and only vicious, and should be cut up by the roots.” “Another thing, Mr. Chairman, it destroys usefulness by hampering the institution itself, and reducing it from the high position which every educational and charitable institution ought to maintain, and bringing it down to the low level of partisan politics and traffic with members of Legislatures and of Congress for their support.” There was a lengthy discussion of the subject, and the appropriation was sustained. It passed the house by a vote of 129 to 105; not voting, 120. There were appeals to religious sentiment, to charitable sentiment, and to political sentiment. The discussion took a wide range, but the point that seems to have had the most influence, altho not the most conspicuous on the surface, was the desire to catch the colored vote. But the way has been opened for the Catholics to come back and charge discrimination against them in favor of Protestant institutions; and the next thing we are likely to see is the politicians vieing with each other in a reactionary effort to recover their lost prestige with the Catholic political power. W. N. G.